A guide to radiation for the clueless...

chris_m

A good article about this on the BBC News site today;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

vivatifosi

chris_m wrote: »

A good article about this on the BBC News site today;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

Brilliant article chris. Answered a lot of my questions. Thank you so much.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

chris_m wrote: »

A good article about this on the BBC News site today;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

This is written by a man who has spent his whole life promoting nuclear & the last 2 years promoting his book.

Generali

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

This is written by a man who has spent his whole life promoting nuclear & the last 2 years promoting his book.

Which bit is inaccurate in your opinion? It all sounds reasonable to me as a layman.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Generali wrote: »

Which bit is inaccurate in your opinion? It all sounds reasonable to me as a layman.

It isn't inaccurate.

However, it is biased, one sided and misses truths & information to present a balanced view of the facts.

And it does not apply to any one "bit" of it. It applies to each & every bit of it. In fact, all of it.

Ilya_Ilyich

Every source of energy is bad to some degree. I believe fission is one of the least bad options currently available to us. Compare it to something like coal power - which depletes a limited resource, emits greenhouse gases and emits significantly more ionising radiation. Wind power uses up significant amounts of rare metals, some of which (such as Coltan) are sourced from brutal and exploitative third world mining. Hydroelectric power is effective but has limited opportunities and can cause earthquakes. Fission is relatively expensive but, I believe, is our best option at the current time.

Generali

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

It isn't inaccurate.

However, it is biased, one sided and misses truths & information to present a balanced view of the facts.

The premise of her piece seems simple. To paraphrase her, us dunderheaded simpletons are running scared from a risk which has been consistently overplayed and that society as a whole faces additional costs from trying to over-minimise (if such a thing is logically possible!) those risks. Australia for example bans all nuclear reactors including preventing nuclear powered naval vessels from parking here.

What truths and information precisely does she miss? The more I have read about nuclear power in the past few days the more it seems that people that work with it are saying the risks are over-played and that people trying to sell newspapers and websites are saying that this is all a massive calamity and that we face a BSE-style situation with hundreds of thousands of deaths from contamination.

fimonkey

Generali wrote: »

The more I have read about nuclear power in the past few days the more it seems that people that work with it are saying the risks are over-played .

Yeah, what Gen said!

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Generali wrote: »

The premise of her piece seems simple. To paraphrase her, us dunderheaded simpletons are running scared from a risk which has been consistently overplayed and that society as a whole faces additional costs from trying to over-minimise (if such a thing is logically possible!) those risks. Australia for example bans all nuclear reactors including preventing nuclear powered naval vessels from parking here.

What truths and information precisely does she miss? The more I have read about nuclear power in the past few days the more it seems that people that work with it are saying the risks are over-played and that people trying to sell newspapers and websites are saying that this is all a massive calamity and that we face a BSE-style situation with hundreds of thousands of deaths from contamination.

Him



And seriously Generali I believe you are taking the mick. Even you used to be able to spot dodgy articles.

I suggest you start researching the damage of Chernobyl to humans & the food chain in relation to the article & start there.

Research.......


You could start with these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Physicians_for_Prevention_of_Nuclear_Warfare


These people produced a report in 2006 critising the UNs report of the death & damage caused by Chernobyl.

You may call these biased but in the interest of balance it may be useful for someone to have a quick read if they want to educate themselves.

Also you will have to look at google cache for some of the info...... Because it has recently (yes, recently within the last 2 weeks after being up for 6 years) been pulled............


Also you may want to google the death & disability rates of the liquidators (clean up people). Apparently there were between 200,000 & 800,000 of these liquidators.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

radioactivity in water at reactor 2 at the quake-damaged fukushima nuclear plant has reached 10 million times the usual level, company officials say.

.........................
......................